Christianity is the truth

The debate "Christianity is the truth" was started by
jrardin12 on
August 27, 2019, 9:39 pm.
26 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 62 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.

name a creationist experiment, study, or any form of research undertaken to actually prove creation.

they are not creationists. they are anti-evolutionists. nothing they do tries to demonstrate creation, they just assume if they disprove evolution, creation will be the default alternative. their only arguments for creation are 1000 year old and nothing they contributed to.

are we closed minded for ignoring the repeatedly debunked, isolated apologetic sources?

or are you naive for ignoring the lions share of accredited research and scientific consensus?

these creationists *try* to poke logical holes in evolution, but the only defenses they have for creation are thousand year old philosophical arguments from anslem. how exactly are they scientists? they are little more then pundits who cherry pick information in order to reach a conclusion they want to reach. thats intellectual dishonesty.

flat earthers have whole websites claiming they are being censored as well. so do anti vaxxers and all sorts of kooks.

its funny that you yourself acknowledge that the creationists scientists spend their entire time debunking evolution and do *ZERO* actual creation based experiements.

theres a difference between being closed minded and not believing every piece of silliness. im assuming you gave that creationist website the same level of scrutiny as you did for the source of your misinformation about jews. you should reevaluate your the quality of your information.

They're not censored, they're wrong. Their articles get published elsewhere, just not in scientific studies because they were wrong. There's no conspiracy.

What is "its job"? I would say that you would say the job is survival, which it does rather despicably for the reason I previously mentioned and more. Evolution would say that "its job" if you can call it that, would be to reproduce, which it does well enough but could easily be done better, especially from an all powerful God.

Yeah, and people claim that the earth is a disk; people can be stupid. Even really smart people can believe really stupid things. You're Christian, right? And I bet you would call Einstein really smart? He was not Christian; case and point. Evolution is demonstrably true; that's why it's a scientific theory and creationism is a hypothesis at best, and more realistically a myth. There is a mountain of evidence against creationism and for evolution.

"If by "creation scientist" You mean someone who poses the creationist hypothesis."
You say that, but I am sure you have not really studied it. On the other hand, the creation scientists have studied evolution meticulously. Which is why they have a whole website showing how unscientific evolution is. They do this by looking at science.

If by "creation scientist" You mean someone who poses the creationist hypothesis, then they are a piss-poor scientist as they are demonstrably wrong.

I don't care if it's an apologist source, really, but I know for a fact that the link you shared (which I did look at, by the way) was not peer reviewed or published in any revered scientific communities or publishers.

If DNA is perfect, then why do we age and die? Why are we constantly diseased? Why are there birth defects? Why are we vulnerable so near everything? Why is so much of the DNA worthless? Why do we have parts of our DNA present that would seriously help us survive, but those parts are "turned off," to put it simply?

I never said that it wasn't complex, I was simply demonstrating the subjectivity of what is "complex". Also, being complex does not mean being designed. In fact, complexity is the hallmark of poor design. Any engineer will tell you that a good engineer's (designer's) job is to make things as simple as possible, so there is little room for future error. Evolution, however, has no such goal.

And, evolution and abiogenesis are two different things, please don't conflate them. And DNA came from RNA, to my understanding, which came from amino acids which have been proven to be able to form on ancient earth climates.

What is natural is what is observable, supernatural the unobservable. If God is real, and you argue that he is observable, then he is natural.

DNA is even complex for geneticists and both creationists and evolutionists geneticists recognize its complexity. Also DNA must have all its parts at once. If evolution is true, DNA could not have evolved. It had to have just appeared, but that would be magic.

God can dispense justice because He is God. Man, however cannot be just. Hence the reason why murder is a sin is because murder comes out of uncontrolled anger and revenge. Jesus explains this in Matthew 5.

Atonement for sin is found throughout the Old Testament. The Jews had several sacrifices for different things, but the Passover was the most important because it was to forgive their sin for that year.
Is God then cruel for taking away their way to salvation? Or did the Messiah already come to do that job as Isaiah 53 says?
I go to the Book of Hebrews which ties it all together. The Old Testament is a good source as well.

that is false. sin is not a prominent feature of judaism and it is attoned for without sacrifice on a specific holy day set aside for it via deeds. the sacrifice need not be blood, although it often involved it in addition to grains etc due to gods inexplicable preference for it.

the reason jews do not do it is not a lack of desire but a lack of location. the temple is where the sacrifice happened, as close to god as possible, and until that longed for temple is rebuilt, in the exact spot it once stood, there is nowhere to sacrifice.

its not like we care about killing animals for this to be a big modern morals deal... wherever you got your information is grossly false.

The Old Testament requires a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin. They were to do this once a year. They have not done this since the AD 70. Instead they have substituted a works salvation instead of a salvation through sacrifice.

The difference between Muslims and Mormons vs. Christianity is that Muslims and Mormons contradict the Old and New Testament. Christianity does not contradict the Old Testament. Also, since Jesus is the Messiah, as the Old Testament prophecies, then Christianity is the follow up of the Old Testament. The Jews today do not practice Old Testament Judaism.

as a counter argument, i will say that within the context of a good god, i would say the b'hai faith is the truth. im sure you never heard of them but it is essentially the 4th version of the abraham god after islam (mormons are still ignored tho)

i do love their explanation for the many faiths and contradictory message. it doesnt involve an imperfect or devious god, just a goal oriented one. different people, at different stages, required a different message via a different messenger. magnificent (imo).

what is the difference between cult and religion? pre 20th century the distinction was quite simple and not negative. age. a young religion is a cult, an old cult is a religion.

early christianity, when it was a charmisatic individual and a small group of followers was a judaism offshoot cult. christianity was technically the same thing as mormonism: judaism with an extra book out of nowhere.

the debate is christianity is truth. i would assume you mean absolute truth in context of everything. obviously christianity is truth within the context of christianity. thats not a point worth making.

so if some crazy man in india starts talking claiming to be a hindu god, and gets a following that does crazy stuff contradictory to hinduism.... thats not a cult?

what if it isnt related to an existing religion, instead is completely new and made up, but still involves a crazy guy getting a following that does crazy stuff due to spirituality numbo jumbo, or alien worship of something.

the question was what is the difference between a religion and a cult. you said cults put their writtings over the bible... hinduism puts its writtings over the bible. does that mean hinduism is a cult?

Jehovah Witnesses actually take out verses in the Bible that disagree with what they believe. Both Witnesses and Mormons religious books contradict what the Bible says. Not to mention that the Book of Mormon is nothing more than a novel with no historical evidence.

Actually, Jehovah's Witnesses stick very firmly to the bible before all else and so do mormons, they just believe that they have a few more biblical books. Both, however, are fundamentalists. The only difference is that you don't believe in their translation/extra books.

i recently got a pamphlet from some denomination claiming that mormons and catholics were not Christians and the watchtower was the trap of satan. it doesnt seem that even most christians will agree on what christian is!